That Wacky Redhead

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

My understanding was that he disliked doing the film and considered it beneath him ... Most of all, he loathed that this was what people remembered him for. And considering his incredibly accomplished career, I wouldn't begrudge him that.

I've gotten the same impression from what little I've heard on it. And I'd agree, he's entitled to disgust. That's what happens when you get a role that turns out to be iconic (& you happen to be so damn good). Gielgud felt the same about "Arthur", but I'll bet you can't quote a single line he did except, "I'll alert the media."

Originally Posted by Brainbin

From what I understand, it was part of the culture of the era: in the 1950s

I do wonder if there wasn't a space program influence. Spacecraft depended (& still depend) on dehydrated food to avoid adding to the mass fraction. (Once you get as much power as Enterprise would have had, that ceases to be an issue... Which brings me back to Gerrold, who, correctly, points out it also means power shortages should never have arisen. Corridors that damn wide? You've got power to burn.)

To which I have to add, "SG-1" did a cute tweak on it: the Asgard eat pill food. ("I like the yellow ones".) And, of course, they explain the "little green men", the alien abduction stories, even the bright lights just before being taken...

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Elvis Lives!

It does make me wonder: does that also mean Eddie lives? (And doesn't fake his death.)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

And I want to see my version of Star Trek!

Amen.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Sometimes writing this timeline can be so bittersweet

Amen.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Not to mention that he'll keep far more of that money to himself

Y'know, I dread the excesses he could get into with so much more to spend... Elvis bankrupt?

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Well, I mentioned the high quality of the commissary food in the previous update. So I was just following through

I didn't believe it then, either. I just didn't say anything.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Perhaps, but I've never been very good with names

Fair enough. IDK if I'd have changed it, either, 'cause I take a view, people don't become different just from butterflies...unless those butterflies mean they have different experience. (Does that sound contradictory?)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Happy Days > needs alternate title > Rock Around the Clock > keep original theme to match title > original context of "Rock Around the Clock" song > Blackboard Jungle > produced by MGM > better management at MGM > re-release to ride wave of retro nostalgia > re-release gets good box-office > inspires television executives > integrated casts on television > Sidney Poitier breakthrough performance > young black actor who resembles Sidney Poitier > remembers 74th Academy Awards > Denzel Washington wins Oscar, gushes over Poitier > says "I'm always chasing you, Sidney" > lightbulb! > cast Denzel Washington in Welcome Back, Kotter in the Poitier analogue role.

No wonder I wouldn't have... I wouldn't have looked past the integrated cast & finding somebody able to fill a comparable role, then started looking through lists of TV actors.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Sorry, she's too young to have avoided the butterflies.

I'm going to miss her. Unless she ends up in TTL's "Dallas"? (Tho that would keep Charlene from getting it... You do keep telling us TV's a zero-sum game...)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

and that of Phillips, for that matter

Good riddance. (I simply can't believe Valerie thought Phillips was better looking.)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

It was changed from 90 minutes to 60 in 1980 IOTL. As far as I know, it was never 75 minutes long in the Carson era.

I confess, I may've misunderstood, but I read a Carson bio (quite a few years ago, now...) indicating there was "clipping" of the 90m shows, leading to Carson "proposing" it be shortened. Could be that was it, & it never became official.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Actually, no. NBC is doing much better ITTL. In the 1975-76 season IOTL, they had just one Top 10 show and only three in the Top 30. They are roughly three times as successful IOTL by those metrics.

And if I'd been paying more attention, I'd have noticed...

Originally Posted by Brainbin

What's also worth noting is that Carson is less successful relative to Cavett and Griffin

Do you have reasons for that? Allowing they're the same people, & the country/world is much the same...

Originally Posted by Brainbin

prevented the emergence of SNL

I didn't say it, but I do want to thank you for that. (I expect I'll be the only one.)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

it has strong buddy-comedy influences

With that, I'll entirely agree. It was to the '70s what "Simon & Simon" was to the '80s. (And thank you for making me think of that connection.)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Hartman will not make the acquaintance of either Brynn Omdahl or Andy Dick ITTL, both of which should make everyone eternally grateful.

If neither is ever heard from, I'll give you my first-born.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

who could possibly dislike him? phx?

My ignorance of "SNL" is so total, I couldn't comment.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I never cared for Maude either - the characters were cold and unappealing in a way that all the ensembles on all the other Norman Lear shows weren't.

I liked it. (Which will surprise nobody.) The mutual dislike struck me as more real than the often-contrived warmth of other shows. It was a nice change. (As for Macy, I got the feeling he was supposed to be a milquetoast, but I agree, better casting wouldn't have hurt.)

Originally Posted by e_wraith

Johnny Carson was awesome. The more time he has for his show the better. I am sad that I only got to experience his later years, but damn what a great comedian/talk show host.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Unfortunately, I missed him entirely. I'm too young to even remember when he went off the air, if my parents would have even let me stay up to watch it. So at least you have your memories.

It makes me sad you missed him, 'cause you missed one of the true legends. Nobody did it better. It was actually better when the monologue didn't work, 'cause then, you got to see just how damn good he really was. You didn't just see him deliver, you got to see him work. It was a rare show he didn't get the audience back. (I wouldn't have wanted to be one of the writers afterward, tho.)

And he did great interviews, too. For me, there are only 3 guys in late night that have been worth a damn: Carson, Snyder, & Charlie Rose. (I never liked Cavett as a host, tho he's a good guy.)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

he's staying on for 90 minutes, whether he likes it or not!

My impression is, he didn't mind the 90m, he minded nobody was watching parts of it.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I'm hesitant to have an OTL chain-smoker quit, especially as early as the 1970s. Nowadays, smokers will quit, largely because they face pressure to do so in every single part of their lives (to that point that it almost takes a special kind of stubbornness not to attempt to quit). Many of those pressures did not exist in the 1970s.

Agreed. It was also a lot harder to quit, then. The idea of nicotine as addictive, the counselling, & the patch, didn't exist. Nor was their, yet, public acceptance of the hazard.

Originally Posted by NCW8

One episode of Yes, Prime Minister suggested it shoul be changed to "Dying of lung cancer may damage your health".

That would be the same one proposing deaths from cigarettes were actually good for the NHS. (I do love Humphrey. )

Also not a smoker; both of my parents were. My dad had to quit after a heart attack, & my mom finally gave it up with the help of a patch after several tries.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

James T. Kirk was based on none other than Daryl F. Gates

Can I suggest we're fortunate his XO wasn't Fletcher Christian?

[Brainbin]

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

God man, you really are turning things upside down.

You might say that things are... all shook up! Uh-huh-huh!

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

Still hoping, deep in my mind, that you'll edit the Doctor Who post and ensure that the Fourth Doctor is played by Tom Baker, starting in 1974, and Sarah Jane Smith is introduced as a companion and stays on the show longer, until the 15th season.

You can keep hoping, but it's not going to happen... unless you're willing to compensate me financially for having to radically re-write that update

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

Other than that, you've really made a lot of changes. How it affects New Hollywood, I don't know, but you sure killed Altman's career at the starting gate.

I sure did! Thank you for noticing. In fact, you may note that another film of his was released around this time IOTL that was not ITTL.

Originally Posted by Unknown

At least Life With Lucy won't be on in this TL (it's featured in the book What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Moments in Television History, although this TL will provide many dumb moments ). Loved the reference to it in your first post (September 20, 1986 was the date of the premiere of Live With Lucy).

As Bart Scott of the New York Jets once said in a different context: Can't wait!!!

Thank you, Unknown! You're the first person to independently note the significance of that date (and it only took 80 pages ). I thought that it would be symbolically appropriate that the same date should mark the end of her career in both timelines, though obviously the triumph of TTL stands in direct contrast to the humiliation of OTL.

Originally Posted by NCW8

Of course he wouldn't known that Star Wars would be the film that he would be remembered for until well after he had finished making it. From what I remember of his interviews at the time, he was defending it as a serious production. As you say, that could be just his professionalism.

To be fair, I think his disdain does bleed into his performance somewhat (as is also the case with Harrison Ford).

Originally Posted by NCW8

There's also the "food pills" that appear most often in spoofs of SF. There was a scene in Come Back Mrs Noah where the captain of the space station is describing the flavours of various coloured food pills. Mrs Noah asks what the large brown pill is, to be told that it's an after-dinner mint.

Ah yes, the legendary "food pills". Star Trek was ahead of the curve on that one, in that at least the food looked (and apparently tasted) real, even though it was replicated. Indeed, one early episode ("Charlie X") depicted a proper chef on the Enterprise (voiced by Gene Roddenberry, in his only acting role in the entire franchise) - though that may have only been for a special occasion (Thanksgiving was taking place over the course of the episode - Charlie brought the turkeys back to life).

Originally Posted by NCW8

I'm not a smoker myself, but both my parents were. They both gave up in about 1979. In the UK, government attempts to persuade people to give up smoking had already started in the seventies, although tobacco advertising was still allowed. I think that the health warning on cigarette packets was introduced in the early seventies, although it was still the somewhat bland "Smoking may damage your health". This was (of course) sometimes parodied. One episode of Yes, Prime Minister suggested it shoul be changed to "Dying of lung cancer may damage your health".

Thanks for sharing. In addition to what you've said, tobacco advertising was of course banned from US television in the early 1970s IOTL (and ITTL) - which must have been devastating, considering just how many shows were sponsored by cigarette brands in the 1950s and 1960s (including, of course, I Love Lucy, sponsored by Philip Morris).

Originally Posted by phx1138

I've gotten the same impression from what little I've heard on it. And I'd agree, he's entitled to disgust. That's what happens when you get a role that turns out to be iconic (& you happen to be so damn good). Gielgud felt the same about "Arthur", but I'll bet you can't quote a single line he did except, "I'll alert the media."

"You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness." I love that movie, and that performance

Originally Posted by phx1138

Y'know, I dread the excesses he could get into with so much more to spend... Elvis bankrupt?

If it didn't happen IOTL, it doubt it would ITTL. He went through a lot of money IOTL

Originally Posted by phx1138

I didn't believe it then, either. I just didn't say anything.

Out of curiosity, have you ever eaten in a studio commissary?

Originally Posted by phx1138

Fair enough. IDK if I'd have changed it, either, 'cause I take a view, people don't become different just from butterflies...unless those butterflies mean they have different experience. (Does that sound contradictory?)

People tend to sit on baby names for a while, too. It's entirely possible that either Elvis or (more likely) Priscilla had been doing just that with the name "Lisa Marie".

Originally Posted by phx1138

You do keep telling us TV's a zero-sum game...

Indeed it is!

Originally Posted by phx1138

Do you have reasons for that? Allowing they're the same people, & the country/world is much the same...

Relative to OTL, NBC is investing less in late-night programming, because they have more hits to finance in primetime; consequently, ABC and CBS are investing more in late-night to try and fill the gap. Just enough for Cavett and Griffin to become entrenched. It helps that they're both very different from Johnny, as well as from each other.

Originally Posted by phx1138

I didn't say it, but I do want to thank you for that. (I expect I'll be the only one.)

You're welcome. I think The Professor was also thankful, if I'm reading his emoticon correctly

Originally Posted by phx1138

If neither is ever heard from, I'll give you my first-born.

Do you actually have a first-born?

Originally Posted by phx1138

My ignorance of "SNL" is so total, I couldn't comment.

Hartman also prominently appeared in The Simpsons and NewsRadio, among others.

Originally Posted by phx1138

I liked it. (Which will surprise nobody.) The mutual dislike struck me as more real than the often-contrived warmth of other shows. It was a nice change.

Not like there were any unavoidable places where we had to spend much of the rest of our lives where people disliked us or vice-versa, right?

Originally Posted by phx1138

Also not a smoker; both of my parents were. My dad had to quit after a heart attack, & my mom finally gave it up with the help of a patch after several tries.

Good on your parents, phx - and yours, Nigel. There are many smokers in my family; some have quit (often after major health scares as well), while others, sadly, have not.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Apparently it's seven - though technically just six, because one of those was (of course) illusory. "Parodies referencing earlier parodies" is a good way to describe the phenomenon, though occasionally new material is added in due to outside circumstances - and I have a great example that demonstrates their extreme emphasis on character. Mr. Sulu, during the run of the series, was the only major character who had neither a catchphrase or verbal tic, nor some kind of character quirk (a few early episodes portrayed him as a serial hobbyist, but this was largely abandoned later on). Consequently, Sulu rarely appears in older parodies; when he does, he's always the straight man. But in recent years, with George Takei following in the footsteps of his hated enemy Bill Shatner and engaging in self-parody (coupled with his coming out of the closet), Sulu is ubiquitous, always played as flamboyantly and lecherously gay (even though Takei has said that the character is actually straight - canon itself is rather vague, daughter aside).

Originally Posted by Lizzie_Harrison

Is this OTL canon or TTL canon?

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Sorry, I should have been more precise. The correct answer is, of course, both of them

Lizzie, which part were you asking about and Brainbin, which part were you referring to with the "both" thing? Neither you nor Lizzie was clear, but it seems like she may have either meant the number of appearances by the Klingons (which is more than OTL, yes?), or the portrayal of Sulu's sexuality--or more accurately how little it does so. Just hate to see people potentially talking past one another--I'd like to make sure that the correct answer is being given to the correct question.

[vultan]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

You might say that things are... all shook up! Uh-huh-huh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bcYppAs6ZdI

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I sure did! Thank you for noticing. In fact, you may note that another film of his was released around this time IOTL that was not ITTL.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller?

Anyway, I quote this to say that by butterflying away the full length of a certain... foreign entanglement, you've done much more than jettison Robert Altman's career. The whole modern "war movie" genre will be completely unrecognizable pretty soon without the advent of the dark and cynical war movie that really started, IMO, with The Deer Hunter. I doubt even Francis Ford Coppola will be able to get his vision for Apocalypse Now greenlit, so he's going to be doing something else with the late 70's (and the results of that are going be be very interesting). Now, since it was really the first televised war, I doubt it can be "forgotten" in the same way that Korea sadly was, even with the same sort of "honorable" peace, but I imagine movies set during the war will be more lighthearted, kind of a cross between most WWII films in the 40's and 50's and the extremely violent (but ultimately silly and unrealistic) action movies of the 80's.

---

Anyway, over the next couple days I'm going to try to read through all of That Wacky Redhead, from start to finish, in my free time. Since I came in relatively late compared to most regular readers of this story, I admit I only skimmed through most of the first several updates (it was really the update on the 1968 election that hooked me).

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by vultan

Anyway, over the next couple days I'm going to try to read through all of That Wacky Redhead, from start to finish, in my free time. Since I came in relatively late compared to most regular readers of this story, I admit I only skimmed through most of the first several updates (it was really the update on the 1968 election that hooked me).

I came for the Star Trek, and stayed because of that 1968 election update. Also, I recomend checking the wiki for the complete post list--unless you're going to reread all the comments too!?

[vultan]

Originally Posted by e of pi

I came for the Star Trek, and stayed because of that 1968 election update. Also, I recomend checking the wiki for the complete post list--unless you're going to reread all the comments too!?

Going through the wiki was the plan. Reading some of the old comments and old speculation may prove to be interesting, however. Perhaps another time.

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

ahead of the curb

...

Originally Posted by Brainbin

You might say that things are... all shook up!

You might. I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I sure did! Thank you for noticing. In fact, you may note that another film of his was released around this time IOTL that was not ITTL.

That would appear to be one of the worst films ever made IMO: "Nashville". It also appears the Elliot Gould films "The Long Goodbye" & "California Split" don't e get made...or, at least, are drastically different. (Seriously, Elliot Gould as Phillip Marlowe? That's exceeded only by Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer.)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

"You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness."

I should have known you could.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I love that movie, and that performance

It makes the film. (Arthur the drunk doesn't weather nearly so well...)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

If it didn't happen IOTL, it doubt it would ITTL. He went through a lot of money IOTL

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Out of curiosity, have you ever eaten in a studio commissary?

Can't say I have... I just find it unlikely the senior execs at any company, especially in Hollywood, are hanging around the cafeteria. The senior production staff (Roddenberry, Justman, & Co.), yes. Lucy? No.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

People tend to sit on baby names for a while, too. It's entirely possible that either Elvis or (more likely) Priscilla had been doing just that with the name "Lisa Marie".

Very possible. IDK, but it wouldn't surprise me it was an old family name or something.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Relative to OTL, NBC is investing less in late-night programming, because they have more hits to finance in primetime; consequently, ABC and CBS are investing more in late-night to try and fill the gap. Just enough for Cavett and Griffin to become entrenched. It helps that they're both very different from Johnny, as well as from each other.

Makes sense. Also makes sense for CBS & ABC to hit late night harder if they feel like they've actually got a chance. OTL, I doubt they thought so, seeing how all the competition kept getting killed off...

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Do you actually have a first-born?

I actually don't. I'd consider it a fair trade. (Don't really like small children at all...)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Hartman also prominently appeared in The Simpsons and NewsRadio, among others.

When he's done "NYPD Blue" or "24", let me know. You're just adding to the catalog of shows I'd never have seen him in, otherwise.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Not like there were any unavoidable places where we had to spend much of the rest of our lives where people disliked us or vice-versa, right?

Not saying RL is more pleasant. (It's not.) I just found suspending disbelief harder for some of the "sweet" shows. Have you ever seen "Serial"? There's an excellent example IMO of a more realistic treatment that's also hilarious. Probably the funniest film I've ever seen. (I saw it more times in a row when it first came out than I ever have before or since, & laughed every time.)

Originally Posted by vultan

by butterflying away the full length of a certain... foreign entanglement...The whole modern "war movie" genre will be completely unrecognizable pretty soon...I imagine movies set during the war will be more lighthearted, kind of a cross between most WWII films in the 40's and 50's and the extremely violent (but ultimately silly and unrealistic) action movies of the 80's.

I find myself dubious of this. The war itself will still attract POV for/against wars in general, & will serve as a backdrop for other stories, like comment on racism or the treatment of the locals. I do agree, "Apocalypse Now" is improbable TTL. (I've also mentioned already the likelihood of Oliver Stone's career disappearing, which suits me fine. If he became a respected, but mainly unknown, TV director, I could live with it.)

There's also the issue of the vets. The shorter Var seems to butterfly all the "crazy vet" movies. It also seems it would heavily impact Bolan. (That would make me very unhappy...tho if it moved Pendleton to Joe Copp by 1976...) It also knocks on *"Magnum", on Animal from OTL's "Lou Grant", & on the approach to Howard Hunter in OTL's "HSB" (no Var, less crazy?).

An aside: does this also impact Rocky Blier's career? (It seems he's WIA before the POD, so maybe not...)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Good on your parents, phx - and yours, Nigel. There are many smokers in my family; some have quit (often after major health scares as well), while others, sadly, have not.

Sorry to hear it. It appears to me a lot of smokers, like alcoholics, need the "smack" to get their attention. I also know how hard quitting is from how hard my mom tried. I am so damn glad I never started.

[e_wraith]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

From what I understand, it was part of the culture of the era: in the 1950s, people actually preferred canned and processed food because it was modern and the myriad chemicals were likewise considered a good thing (this was also a culture that preferred baby formula to breastfeeding, for the same reasons). Environmentalism no doubt played a part, but ever since the 1970s, the backlash against that seems to have developed into a genuine appreciation of real ingredients grown organically.

Ah, the pendulum of progress... People in some time periods view it as inherently good and seek to surround themselves with it, and others curse it and long for ye oldend days of yore (or ye fantasy times of never, perhaps). I wonder why we always have to be so polarized on these things? And it all seems so logical when you are in the moment, I am sure.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Hartman will not make the acquaintance of either Brynn Omdahl or Andy Dick ITTL, both of which should make everyone eternally grateful.

Awww... Now I am really sad that this is not our reality.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I never cared for Maude either

I really can't place why this show seems so bad to me.

***Major Digression Alert!***
Okay, I admit, I hated lots of older shows up to and even into college. I was squarely of the opinion that now was better than then in most ways. I could only watch old shows to make fun of them and the times they were made in, and did so a decent amount. I am an inherantly sarcastic and yes, even cynical person. But eventually I came to understand that people from the past weren't stupid, they were just living their lives dealing with the circumstances that their time provided. And if our time were more enlightened than the past be it in science, or social policies, or whatever... It wasn't because we were superior people, but because of everything those people from past generations did to make the world a better place. The world isn't better despite the ignorance of our forebearers, but because of their drive to overcome it. We stand on the shoulders of giants. And we owe it to them and those that come after us to do just the same, and fight our own ignorance and predjudices. Well, this perspective shift led to me looking at older media, and trying to understand the context it was produced in. Oh, some things still deserve mocking, don't get me wrong, but there is a lot to learn from most things none the less.
***End Major Digression***

What does this has to do with Maude? Well, even with the above epiphany, I still cannot stand Maude. Then again, I couldn't stand it even to mock it. Something just grates on my about it worse than just about any other program I can think of. Everyone is so unlikable and shrill... Ugh.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Unfortunately, I missed him entirely. I'm too young to even remember when he went off the air, if my parents would have even let me stay up to watch it.

Ha, I used to sneak out of bed to catch Johnny. My father didn't approve, but my mother was more tolerant of me being up late. I also did the same for SNL. Oh, for the birthyear records, 1978 for me.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I'm hesitant to have an OTL chain-smoker quit, especially as early as the 1970s. Nowadays, smokers will quit, largely because they face pressure to do so in every single part of their lives (to that point that it almost takes a special kind of stubbornness not to attempt to quit). Many of those pressures did not exist in the 1970s.

Certainly true, though in this case Webb was being pressured by his doctor and his family and friends to at least cut back. His doctor actually told him to stop completely. Plus he was uncomfortable about the comparison of marijuana to his chosen vices. This, though, probably even better makes the case that he was not likely to stop since he didn't even with these pressures.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

It is interesting that he had so little involvement with the genre ITTL. Though his police work, from what I understand, did influence the characterizations in Star Trek. There's an old story that James T. Kirk was based on none other than Daryl F. Gates - yes, that Daryl F. Gates, speaking of the riots.

Hey, Gates made an impression on lots of people. And Roddenberry was his official PR officer for a time. Jack Webb was his unofficial PR officer for a lot longer, of course.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Sometimes I can be just slightly facetious

See, you have a gift for understatement. Make sure your family and friends know that if you ever call them complaining of a minor cut on your arm they should start looking around for where the limb wound up.

[NCW8]

Originally Posted by Thande

BTW, I have heard that the radio play version of Star Wars mentioned by NCW8 is actually much better and more 'adult' or 'realistic' in tone than the actual film...it's a bit hard to describe, but apparently you feel more like you're actually in the Death Star and it's a real place with Imperial soldiers going about their daily lives, that sort of thing.

That sounds about right. I think that it's partly to do with the medium of radio. A radio SF drama can't be carried by good special effects and isn't ruined by bad ones. While sound effects are important to set the atmosphere, what really counts is the dialog, so there was probably more attention paid to the dialog in the radio series than in the film.

Also you tend to get more dialog in a radio production than in film or tv as it is the only way to let the listener know what's happening. This makes it easier to incorporate infodumps into a radio drama. Probably one of the faults of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy tv series is that it tried to keep too much of the dialog making it too wordy. On radio it's also easier to have throw-away lines such as "Hi Zaphod - The extra head suits you."

Originally Posted by phx1138

Agreed. It was also a lot harder to quit, then. The idea of nicotine as addictive, the counselling, & the patch, didn't exist. Nor was their, yet, public acceptance of the hazard.

The addictive nature was known in the seventies, and while the patch didn't exist there were some products out there to help people.

Originally Posted by phx1138

That would be the same one proposing deaths from cigarettes were actually good for the NHS. (I do love Humphrey. )

Like all of the best lines in Yes Prime Minister, there's something of a grain of truth in that. The duties on tobacco and alcohol are designed to encourage people to give them up (or at least reduce their consumption), but there's no denying that they do provide a lot of revenue for the government.

Originally Posted by e of pi

I came for the Star Trek, and stayed because of that 1968 election update. Also, I recomend checking the wiki for the complete post list--unless you're going to reread all the comments too!?

I was attracted by the Dr Who/Star Trek crossover, since I was a fan of both series. I would have loved to see this episode in real life. I can even picture some of the scenes (e.g. the Doctor, Spock and Scotty reconfiguring the Forward Deflector to interfere with the transmission of the Nestene Consiousness) and some of the dialog "You're from Vulcan ? I remember meeting Surak - wonderful man, terrific sense of humour".

Cheers,
Nigel.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

You're welcome. I think The Professor was also thankful, if I'm reading his emoticon correctly

Indeed .

My memories of it in the 80s was that it was extremely crass and quite unfunny.
Now it might be because I'm English, or was a serious child, or because my best mate at the time incomprehensively found it hilarious (), or something else.

I should point out before all the SNL fans gang up that I enjoyed the Two Ronnies which was probably equally crass, and that I found the very american Cheers to be hilarious.

[Lizzie_Harrison]

Originally Posted by e of pi

Lizzie, which part were you asking about and Brainbin, which part were you referring to with the "both" thing? Neither you nor Lizzie was clear, but it seems like she may have either meant the number of appearances by the Klingons (which is more than OTL, yes?), or the portrayal of Sulu's sexuality--or more accurately how little it does so. Just hate to see people potentially talking past one another--I'd like to make sure that the correct answer is being given to the correct question.

I was referring to the entire section on Sulu/Takei.

Interesting to tie into his later political career. TTL's Arnold? Well-known actor has a large fan-base leading to political grass roots? Or did Reagan do that first (either timeline)? This would tie in really well with Brainbin's butterflies on how fandoms work with Doctor Who and Star Trek leading the way.

[unclepatrick]

Originally Posted by vultan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bcYppAs6ZdI



McCabe and Mrs. Miller?

Anyway, I quote this to say that by butterflying away the full length of a certain... foreign entanglement, you've done much more than jettison Robert Altman's career. The whole modern "war movie" genre will be completely unrecognizable pretty soon without the advent of the dark and cynical war movie that really started, IMO, with The Deer Hunter. I doubt even Francis Ford Coppola will be able to get his vision for Apocalypse Now greenlit, so he's going to be doing something else with the late 70's (and the results of that are going be be very interesting). Now, since it was really the first televised war, I doubt it can be "forgotten" in the same way that Korea sadly was, even with the same sort of "honorable" peace, but I imagine movies set during the war will be more lighthearted, kind of a cross between most WWII films in the 40's and 50's and the extremely violent (but ultimately silly and unrealistic) action movies of the 80's.

---

Anyway, over the next couple days I'm going to try to read through all of That Wacky Redhead, from start to finish, in my free time. Since I came in relatively late compared to most regular readers of this story, I admit I only skimmed through most of the first several updates (it was really the update on the 1968 election that hooked me).

Since the original Idea on Apocalypse Now is to do a modern version of Heart of Darkness, It still doable. If not in Nam than in South American or Africa. It would be closer to the Book. I doubt it be as big a picture as in OTL .

[unclepatrick]

You think you seen Baker suggested for every role on Doctor Who. Not even close. No one suggested having Baker in Drag as one of the female Companions, Did they? Still lots of possibility for Old Tom to appear.

I think it in part the love we have for Tom in the role and a desire to see him do well in your timeline.

The last few updates have been very interesting and the on going discussions
are always fascinating. Thank for you hard work and keep it up.

[Brainbin]

I'm working on the next update, which involves no small amount of number-crunching and analysis, and the nature of such doesn't quite hold my interest in the same way as demography or psephology does; but I am making progress, and I hope to have it all ready in the next few days. But until then...

And I answered assuming that's what she meant. (ITTL, the Klingons would have to appear in at least eight episodes, because that's how many Kor appears in - and they do appear without him as well, probably about half the time. So, 16/135, which is slightly more often than the 7/79 of OTL.) But to elaborate on Sulu/Takei...

From what I gather, during the run of the original series, his sexuality was an open secret. Do I think that it was "coded" into the characterization of Sulu? Well, I wouldn't dismiss the notion outright - although the evidence is mostly inferential, and I've never seen anyone indicate that this was so (sadly, Inside Star Trek and Takei's autobiography To The Stars were both written before he came out, so it's hard to say for sure). But let's look at the facts:

• Sulu is the only one of the six male regulars who never had an onscreen love interest. In fact, "This Side of Paradise" originally featured Sulu in the romantic subplot with Leila; story editor D.C. Fontana rewrote the episode accordingly. Was this because of her well-documented love of Spock, or were there other motivations?
• The Sulu in the Mirror Universe (which is "opposite" to the "prime" universe) is aggressively flirtatious with Uhura (and therefore blatantly heterosexual).
• Sulu was born in San Francisco, and speaks fondly of it. By the 1980s, it was already well-established as the Gay Mecca. (This was because of a subplot that would have had him meet his ancestor, which was dropped after the child actor cast in the role proved uncooperative - but note that, in this comedy film, that line was kept in).
• Kirk is surprised that Sulu has a daughter. Granted, the standard interpretation is that this is because he knows so little about the lives of his crew, which is equally valid.

Working against any circumstantial evidence is Takei himself repeatedly claiming that Sulu is straight, and presumably he would know (and have no reason to claim differently). But that same ambiguity and potential to build an argument - however similarly tenuous - will exist ITTL, just as it does IOTL.

Originally Posted by vultan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bcYppAs6ZdI

Do you have the one with the trumpet that goes "waah waah waah"?

Phx has it (though I obviously don't necessarily agree with him on the quality of the film). Something that strikes closer to home for you, I'm sure

Originally Posted by vultan

Anyway, I quote this to say that by butterflying away the full length of a certain... foreign entanglement, you've done much more than jettison Robert Altman's career. The whole modern "war movie" genre will be completely unrecognizable pretty soon without the advent of the dark and cynical war movie that really started, IMO, with The Deer Hunter. I doubt even Francis Ford Coppola will be able to get his vision for Apocalypse Now greenlit, so he's going to be doing something else with the late 70's (and the results of that are going be be very interesting). Now, since it was really the first televised war, I doubt it can be "forgotten" in the same way that Korea sadly was, even with the same sort of "honorable" peace, but I imagine movies set during the war will be more lighthearted, kind of a cross between most WWII films in the 40's and 50's and the extremely violent (but ultimately silly and unrealistic) action movies of the 80's.

That's a very perceptive analysis. I'll be honest here: prematurely ending the overseas quagmire was indeed partly motivated by a desire to stomp out the seemingly endless stream of films about the subject IOTL (and, indeed, people going on and on about it in general). It took the collective American psyche nearly thirty years to fully recover from that war, and sadly, it only managed to do so because of another tragic event that completely shifted the cultural paradigm.

And well said on Korea - a war in which Canadians fought as well, and it's very much forgotten here, too.

Originally Posted by vultan

Anyway, over the next couple days I'm going to try to read through all of That Wacky Redhead, from start to finish, in my free time.

That's really great to hear, vultan - I look forward to hearing your cumulative thoughts about the timeline so far, once you've finished

Those two updates on Page 3 are still among my very favourite. The first one only because it drops that huge bomb at the end - that Wham Line is probably my proudest moment, because nobody was expecting it. And then, of course, that next update seems to be what my timeline is known for, all over the board: "the one where Lucy staying at Desilu gets Hubert Humphrey elected". And if that was what got the two of you hooked on TWR, then that's all the more reason for me to be glad that I wrote it!

Seriously. If you ever read all those comments, then you deserve a No-Prize!

Originally Posted by phx1138

...

Excuse me. I was operating on very little sleep yesterday.

Originally Posted by phx1138

I should have known you could.

Yes... bathing is a lonely business

Originally Posted by phx1138

Can't say I have... I just find it unlikely the senior execs at any company, especially in Hollywood, are hanging around the cafeteria. The senior production staff (Roddenberry, Justman, & Co.), yes. Lucy? No.

That Wacky Redhead is a very hands-on studio chief. Besides, if she didn't eat with Herbie and Bobby, she'd have to eat with her husband!

Originally Posted by phx1138

Not saying RL is more pleasant. (It's not.) I just found suspending disbelief harder for some of the "sweet" shows.

I find it very difficult to watch more nihilistic (or "realistic", if you prefer) shows. If I don't like the characters, then their struggles have no meaning, and I feel like I'm "subjecting" myself to something. Why would I ever watch something that became a chore to me? I watch television to be entertained!

Originally Posted by phx1138

An aside: does this also impact Rocky Blier's career? (It seems he's WIA before the POD, so maybe not...)

No he wasn't. Shipped out in May 1969 IOTL - the armistice was in place by this point ITTL, so he would have presumably been allowed to return to civilian life in time for the 1970 season, apparently on the road to becoming one of the greatest American football players of the 1970s.

Originally Posted by phx1138

Sorry to hear it. It appears to me a lot of smokers, like alcoholics, need the "smack" to get their attention. I also know how hard quitting is from how hard my mom tried. I am so damn glad I never started.

I can't even go near one without erupting into a hacking cough - I don't think I could take it up even if I wanted to (and I don't want to).

Originally Posted by e_wraith

Ah, the pendulum of progress... People in some time periods view it as inherently good and seek to surround themselves with it, and others curse it and long for ye oldend days of yore (or ye fantasy times of never, perhaps). I wonder why we always have to be so polarized on these things? And it all seems so logical when you are in the moment, I am sure.

Cultural relativism and historiography are very powerful things; that much has become very clear over the last century.

Originally Posted by e_wraith

Awww... Now I am really sad that this is not our reality.

I know how you feel. Of course, since I'm writing this timeline, there are a lot of little things that I've written in strictly to amuse or appeal to myself, and I'm quite pleasantly surprised just how well some of them have gone over with my readers. We'll have to see if that holds true as I continue with some of my other plans...

Originally Posted by e_wraith

Okay, I admit, I hated lots of older shows up to and even into college. I was squarely of the opinion that now was better than then in most ways. I could only watch old shows to make fun of them and the times they were made in, and did so a decent amount. I am an inherantly sarcastic and yes, even cynical person. But eventually I came to understand that people from the past weren't stupid, they were just living their lives dealing with the circumstances that their time provided. And if our time were more enlightened than the past be it in science, or social policies, or whatever... It wasn't because we were superior people, but because of everything those people from past generations did to make the world a better place. The world isn't better despite the ignorance of our forebearers, but because of their drive to overcome it. We stand on the shoulders of giants. And we owe it to them and those that come after us to do just the same, and fight our own ignorance and predjudices. Well, this perspective shift led to me looking at older media, and trying to understand the context it was produced in. Oh, some things still deserve mocking, don't get me wrong, but there is a lot to learn from most things none the less.

Thank you for that very thoughtful contribution - this is one of the "heavier" concepts I'm dealing with in writing this timeline. Popular culture definitely touches on this, on well. The backlash against 1950s programming (and, later, the retro nostalgia, and then "ironically" embracing it), and then the (much later) backlash against 1980s programming, which seems to be following a similar trajectory. Which touches on your earlier point about the pendulum swinging (I've now mentioned it, too, in the timeline proper).

Originally Posted by e_wraith

What does this has to do with Maude? Well, even with the above epiphany, I still cannot stand Maude. Then again, I couldn't stand it even to mock it. Something just grates on my about it worse than just about any other program I can think of. Everyone is so unlikable and shrill... Ugh.

And again, I reiterate that it seems to have aged the worst of all the longer-running Norman Lear shows. All in the Family, Sanford and Son, The Jeffersons, Good Times, and One Day at a Time have all endured much better than Maude. And I definitely think that you may have hit on some of the reasons why.

Originally Posted by e_wraith

Oh, for the birthyear records, 1978 for me.

Thank you for sharing! That makes 29 data points: the mean is 1976, and the median is 1977 (and both are trending downward). What's also interesting is that we now have three mode decades: seven posters were each born in the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s.

Originally Posted by e_wraith

This, though, probably even better makes the case that he was not likely to stop since he didn't even with these pressures.

All right, then, I'm glad you understand my reasoning.

Originally Posted by e_wraith

Hey, Gates made an impression on lots of people. And Roddenberry was his official PR officer for a time. Jack Webb was his unofficial PR officer for a lot longer, of course.

Those must have been very heady days at the LAPD in the 1950s...

Originally Posted by e_wraith

See, you have a gift for understatement. Make sure your family and friends know that if you ever call them complaining of a minor cut on your arm they should start looking around for where the limb wound up.

Well, there have to be some tradeoffs to my deliberately cultivated understated online personality

Originally Posted by NCW8

I was attracted by the Dr Who/Star Trek crossover, since I was a fan of both series. I would have loved to see this episode in real life. I can even picture some of the scenes (e.g. the Doctor, Spock and Scotty reconfiguring the Forward Deflector to interfere with the transmission of the Nestene Consiousness) and some of the dialog "You're from Vulcan ? I remember meeting Surak - wonderful man, terrific sense of humour".

I'm glad you liked it. I've admitted before that I planned it to attract attention - in retrospect, the 1968 election probably got the job done, though that certainly didn't hurt.

Originally Posted by The Professor

My memories of it in the 80s was that it was extremely crass and quite unfunny.
Now it might be because I'm English, or was a serious child, or because my best mate at the time incomprehensively found it hilarious (), or something else.

The problem I've always had with Saturday Night Live is that it's so pompous and arrogant, because it's an "important" show (and boy, do the writers ever know it!). Apparently, the Not Ready For Primetime Players years were more irreverent - but lately, they've been insufferable; and it doesn't help that their most recent resurgence revolved around a topical political parody - based around the reigning champ of smug SNL personalities, Tina Fey, who isn't nearly as funny as she thinks she is.

Originally Posted by Lizzie_Harrison

Interesting to tie into his later political career. TTL's Arnold? Well-known actor has a large fan-base leading to political grass roots? Or did Reagan do that first (either timeline)? This would tie in really well with Brainbin's butterflies on how fandoms work with Doctor Who and Star Trek leading the way.

Reagan was elected the Governor of California in 1966; George Takei ran for the Los Angeles City Council in 1973 (and won, ITTL). Obviously, Takei has a much higher climb to the top than Reagan did, since you can run for President directly from a gubernatorial office (or a former one), whereas Takei needs at least one more promotion in between, and possibly two. If, indeed, he were interested in running for President. I've mentioned before that he strikes me as far more of a legislative mind than an executive one, if his OTL political activities are any indication. Also, if he plans on moving on up, he'll at least want an office that he has a reasonable chance of winning.

Originally Posted by unclepatrick

The last few updates have been very interesting and the on going discussions are always fascinating. Thank for you hard work and keep it up.

Thank you very much for the compliment! And thank you for reading

---

And now, to observe the passing of an individual who has a very special connection with one of the major foci of this timeline. William Windom, who played Commodore Matt Decker in my favourite episode of Star Trek, "The Doomsday Machine", recently died of congestive heart failure at the age of 88. Windom also starred in My World and Welcome to It, as well as Dr. Seth Hazlitt in Murder, She Wrote; he also appeared in many television series and movies throughout his over half-century-long career.

May he rest in peace.

[Andrew T]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I'm hesitant to have an OTL chain-smoker quit, especially as early as the 1970s. Nowadays, smokers will quit, largely because they face pressure to do so in every single part of their lives (to that point that it almost takes a special kind of stubbornness not to attempt to quit). Many of those pressures did not exist in the 1970s.

(Disclaimer: I am a non-smoker, and if any smokers - or even better, ex-smokers - have a take on this issue, please feel free to share it with us.)

I'm 38, a non-smoker, but both of my parents were smokers growing up. Here's my take on it: the entirety of our current view on smoking can be traced, rather directly, to C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General.

If you didn't live through the late 70s and early 80s, it's hard to remember that (well-meaning!) parents would put their kids in the back seat and smoke in the front. Airplanes had a designated "smoking section" -- as if sitting three rows in front of 50 smokers inside a confined metal tube could *possibly* make the slightest bit of difference. If you were a white-collar professional, your office had an ashtray. And so on.

I would say that this practice was the norm in, say, 1982. And by 1985, the entire country underwent a seismic shift that made all of these practices taboo (and soon afterwards, illegal).

Koop was, as far as I know, the first person to publicize (1) that nicotine was addictive, and (2) that second-hand smoke was dangerous. These are not particularly shocking facts, but the public's response to Koop was something totally unique: cigarettes began -- almost immediately -- to be perceived as low class. Smoking was something you were addicted to, and you were an object of pity for being "unable to quit that 'filthy habit.'" Smoking, in short, became what you did when you were either too uneducated to know it was bad for you, or too weak-willed to stop. Oh, and you're killing the people around you with second-hand smoke, don't you know?

Now, that's a very, very idiosyncratic reaction. In fact, I can't think of another product that's been subjected to that sort of social stigma for casual use. We pity/despise alcoholics today, for example -- but not social drinkers. (It's the reverse; the cocktail party remains an essential element of white collar society.) Maybe crack cocaine -- but there's a racist element there that's disanalogous. Um, crystal meth, perhaps?

Anyway, my point is that I find it very difficult to believe that the public's reaction to smoking would follow anything like the course it did IOTL without Koop. I think a massive -- and very unique -- cultural shift took place in the mid-80s, and I think any TL that could butterfly away Koop will almost certainly result a very different environment when it comes to smoking.

[Falkenburg]

Looks like it's just me then.

Hello. My name is Falkenburg and I'm a Smoker. Prison-thin, hand-rolled, Filterless Golden Virginnia, for preference.

I am well aware that smoking is detrimental to my health. So is living. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

This pretty much covers my thoughts on the subject. Depending on how charitable I'm feeling.
(Probably NSFW, depends where you work).

Falkenburg

[vultan]

Originally Posted by unclepatrick

Since the original Idea on Apocalypse Now is to do a modern version of Heart of Darkness, It still doable. If not in Nam than in South American or Africa. It would be closer to the Book. I doubt it be as big a picture as in OTL .

I dunno, from what I know the concept was originally created by Coppola in the late 1960's, with the working title "The Psychadelic Soldier". Something in me doubts he would rework it as a straight adaptation of Heart of Darkness or as something else entirely (say, a science fiction film set on another planet). The way it was, Apocalypse Now was on the cutting edge of the cultural zeitgeist, and without those conditions, I doubt Coppola would have much interest in producing the film.

Maybe it'll take the spot that IOTL is filled by Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon biopic as "the greatest film never made".

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I'm working on the next update, which involves no small amount of number-crunching and analysis, and the nature of such doesn't quite hold my interest in the same way as demography or psephology does; but I am making progress, and I hope to have it all ready in the next few days. But until then...

Can't wait until then!

Originally Posted by Brainbin

And I answered assuming that's what she meant. (ITTL, the Klingons would have to appear in at least eight episodes, because that's how many Kor appears in - and they do appear without him as well, probably about half the time. So, 16/135, which is slightly more often than the 7/79 of OTL.) But to elaborate on Sulu/Takei...

How about the Romulans? I assume most of the more elaborate alien races (Gorn, Tholians, Talosians, ones who didn't show up IOTL) were pretty much "one-off" villains, with maybe some verbal references later on?

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Do you have the one with the trumpet that goes "waah waah waah"?

This work?

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Phx has it (though I obviously don't necessarily agree with him on the quality of the film). Something that strikes closer to home for you, I'm sure

Oh... that one...

Not my favorite, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

That's a very perceptive analysis. I'll be honest here: prematurely ending the overseas quagmire was indeed partly motivated by a desire to stomp out the seemingly endless stream of films about the subject IOTL (and, indeed, people going on and on about it in general). It took the collective American psyche nearly thirty years to fully recover from that war, and sadly, it only managed to do so because of another tragic event that completely shifted the cultural paradigm.

Yes, it was America's nightmare. I'd say it was really a combination of factors that instilled the cynicism that pervades much of modern American political/social/cultural discourse, with probably the Big Three events being JFK's assassination, the war, and Watergate. Here, you only have part of the equation, so I doubt that there's the critical mass necessary to have that feeling replicated.

When I look into the future of your timeline, I see the 80's writ large. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

And well said on Korea - a war in which Canadians fought as well, and it's very much forgotten here, too.

Again, a sad thing.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

That's really great to hear, vultan - I look forward to hearing your cumulative thoughts about the timeline so far, once you've finished

I'll be sure to let you know!

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Seriously. If you ever read all those comments, then you deserve a No-Prize!

Well, "perhaps some day" means "probably never" in this context.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I find it very difficult to watch more nihilistic (or "realistic", if you prefer) shows. If I don't like the characters, then their struggles have no meaning, and I feel like I'm "subjecting" myself to something. Why would I ever watch something that became a chore to me? I watch television to be entertained!

I dunno, I think you're a bit too hard on "dark and gritty", though I freely admit I like edgy shows and movies. It's like when Alan Moore, who will go down in pop culture history as one of the guys who was responsible for the "dark and gritty" trend in media that has really continued to this day, was dismayed to see that other writers had taken the most shallow elements from Watchmen and thought that was all there was too it. It'd be like dismissing Star Trek as being in the same league as Lost in Space or the Adam West Batman series. You gotta judge each work of fiction by it's individual merits (though unless you're someone with a job like Roger Ebert's or just happen to have a lot of free time, it's kind of hard to expose yourself to enough media to make a judgment).

But you're obviously a well-read and intelligent guy, so I respect your opinions on this topic.

[Orville_third]

Originally Posted by Andrew T

I'm 38, a non-smoker, but both of my parents were smokers growing up. Here's my take on it: the entirety of our current view on smoking can be traced, rather directly, to C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General.

If you didn't live through the late 70s and early 80s, it's hard to remember that (well-meaning!) parents would put their kids in the back seat and smoke in the front. Airplanes had a designated "smoking section" -- as if sitting three rows in front of 50 smokers inside a confined metal tube could *possibly* make the slightest bit of difference. If you were a white-collar professional, your office had an ashtray. And so on.

I would say that this practice was the norm in, say, 1982. And by 1985, the entire country underwent a seismic shift that made all of these practices taboo (and soon afterwards, illegal).

Koop was, as far as I know, the first person to publicize (1) that nicotine was addictive, and (2) that second-hand smoke was dangerous. These are not particularly shocking facts, but the public's response to Koop was something totally unique: cigarettes began -- almost immediately -- to be perceived as low class. Smoking was something you were addicted to, and you were an object of pity for being "unable to quit that 'filthy habit.'" Smoking, in short, became what you did when you were either too uneducated to know it was bad for you, or too weak-willed to stop. Oh, and you're killing the people around you with second-hand smoke, don't you know?

Now, that's a very, very idiosyncratic reaction. In fact, I can't think of another product that's been subjected to that sort of social stigma for casual use. We pity/despise alcoholics today, for example -- but not social drinkers. (It's the reverse; the cocktail party remains an essential element of white collar society.) Maybe crack cocaine -- but there's a racist element there that's disanalogous. Um, crystal meth, perhaps?

Anyway, my point is that I find it very difficult to believe that the public's reaction to smoking would follow anything like the course it did IOTL without Koop. I think a massive -- and very unique -- cultural shift took place in the mid-80s, and I think any TL that could butterfly away Koop will almost certainly result a very different environment when it comes to smoking.

Interesting. Koop has played a very big role over time. He was a major researcher in neonatology. He was an anti-abortion activist and did a film with Francis Schaeffer, which helped raise evangelical awareness of the anti-Abortion movement. His nomination was controversial. However, the anti-abortion groups would denounce him after his report on AIDS, in which he called for increased condom use.
There were other things that raised awareness too, like the famous Yul Brynner ads.

[stevep]

Andrew

I don't know. Had my teens in the 70's and although the big tobacco companies were still trying to hide the facts, from what I remember it was already clear then it was a serious health problem. Koop might have been a significant factor in the US but would that have been partly because critical pressure had already built up on the issue.

My mum smoked when I was very young but gave up I think when I was about 8-10 age. I had the same sort of reaction to any smoke as someone else in terms of finding it utterly replusive and prompting coughing being anywhere near a smoker.

Steve

Originally Posted by Andrew T

I'm 38, a non-smoker, but both of my parents were smokers growing up. Here's my take on it: the entirety of our current view on smoking can be traced, rather directly, to C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General.

If you didn't live through the late 70s and early 80s, it's hard to remember that (well-meaning!) parents would put their kids in the back seat and smoke in the front. Airplanes had a designated "smoking section" -- as if sitting three rows in front of 50 smokers inside a confined metal tube could *possibly* make the slightest bit of difference. If you were a white-collar professional, your office had an ashtray. And so on.

I would say that this practice was the norm in, say, 1982. And by 1985, the entire country underwent a seismic shift that made all of these practices taboo (and soon afterwards, illegal).

Koop was, as far as I know, the first person to publicize (1) that nicotine was addictive, and (2) that second-hand smoke was dangerous. These are not particularly shocking facts, but the public's response to Koop was something totally unique: cigarettes began -- almost immediately -- to be perceived as low class. Smoking was something you were addicted to, and you were an object of pity for being "unable to quit that 'filthy habit.'" Smoking, in short, became what you did when you were either too uneducated to know it was bad for you, or too weak-willed to stop. Oh, and you're killing the people around you with second-hand smoke, don't you know?

Now, that's a very, very idiosyncratic reaction. In fact, I can't think of another product that's been subjected to that sort of social stigma for casual use. We pity/despise alcoholics today, for example -- but not social drinkers. (It's the reverse; the cocktail party remains an essential element of white collar society.) Maybe crack cocaine -- but there's a racist element there that's disanalogous. Um, crystal meth, perhaps?

Anyway, my point is that I find it very difficult to believe that the public's reaction to smoking would follow anything like the course it did IOTL without Koop. I think a massive -- and very unique -- cultural shift took place in the mid-80s, and I think any TL that could butterfly away Koop will almost certainly result a very different environment when it comes to smoking.

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

let's look at the facts:

• Sulu is the only one of the six male regulars who never had an onscreen love interest. In fact, "This Side of Paradise" originally featured Sulu in the romantic subplot with Leila; story editor D.C. Fontana rewrote the episode accordingly. Was this because of her well-documented love of Spock, or were there other motivations?
• The Sulu in the Mirror Universe (which is "opposite" to the "prime" universe) is aggressively flirtatious with Uhura (and therefore blatantly heterosexual).
• Sulu was born in San Francisco, and speaks fondly of it. By the 1980s, it was already well-established as the Gay Mecca. (This was because of a subplot that would have had him meet his ancestor, which was dropped after the child actor cast in the role proved uncooperative - but note that, in this comedy film, that line was kept in).
• Kirk is surprised that Sulu has a daughter. Granted, the standard interpretation is that this is because he knows so little about the lives of his crew, which is equally valid.

All ambiguous, unfortunately. And I'm unsatisfied Kirk wouldn't know about a daughter...tho I tend to the view Enterprise, indeed all starships, should be treated as nuclear submarines, not battleships...or armed cruise liners.)

Plus, acceptance of a gay character in the '60s would have been so slim as to make it pretty hazardous even to imply it.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

It took the collective American psyche nearly thirty years to fully recover from that war

I wonder if the Baby Boom didn't play a major role, there. The split on the war, & on the draft, was heavily on generational lines, & the obsession with it is a product of it being the central, defining moment of the Boom generation. Think about it: you can define yourself by asking, "Was the V a major fear in my teen years?" If not, you're not a Boomer. (You can then go on to ask, "Do I think Oliver Stone is God?" {No, I don't hate him. I just think he's vastly overrated.})

To which must be added the extensive TV coverage, which by its nature was biased. Not intentionally, by any means, but simply because sending reporters on patrols or search & destroys (never mind LRRPs) was damn hard. (Why the Pentagon never made available Army & Air Force mopic footage, IDK.)

Consider Tet. The fighting in Saigon & Hue was all over the news, but all the coverage was from the American side & in the cities, & it looked like the U.S. was losing. I'll wager most people, even now, think Tet was a DRV victory.

Plus, all too many films have made out the VC/NVA were routinely outnumbered in the field...

(FYI, I do think the U.S. could have won. I also think the damn war should never have been fought, & could quite easily have been avoided with just a little astute diplomacy in '44-'50.)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Excuse me. I was operating on very little sleep yesterday.

I suspected something, which why I said nothing.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Yes... bathing is a lonely business

I'm embarrassed to admit how long it took me to catch that.

Originally Posted by Brainbin

That Wacky Redhead is a very hands-on studio chief. Besides, if she didn't eat with Herbie and Bobby, she'd have to eat with her husband!

*insert Groucho Marx joke here*

Originally Posted by Brainbin

I find it very difficult to watch more nihilistic (or "realistic", if you prefer) shows. If I don't like the characters, then their struggles have no meaning, and I feel like I'm "subjecting" myself to something. Why would I ever watch something that became a chore to me? I watch television to be entertained!

I don't suggest you should. It made me laugh, & everybody by now knows...

Originally Posted by Brainbin

No he wasn't. Shipped out in May 1969 IOTL - the armistice was in place by this point ITTL, so he would have presumably been allowed to return to civilian life in time for the 1970 season, apparently on the road to becoming one of the greatest American football players of the 1970s.

(Tho it does mean Robert Urich probably won't be playing him in a biopic... {Which is the only reason I know who he is. Rimsky-Korsakov, either.} Then again, if he's better, maybe Urich will anyhow. {Pick your favorite.})

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Cultural relativism and historiography are very powerful things; that much has become very clear over the last century.

I think there's an enormous amount of romanticism born of ignorance. If you really had to live like even the early 20th Century, never mind the 15th, you would hate it. I want to give the greens a smack every time I hear "smaller is better". I don't see any of them moving to Ethiopia or Bangladesh (there's a word for that: hypocrite), but they want to take away my stuff & forcibly "re-educate" me to their thinking.... (Yes, this really bugs me. I really don't want to live in the 12th Century, & that's what the only "sustainable" society I can think of looks like.)

Originally Posted by e_wraith

people from the past weren't stupid, they were just living their lives dealing with the circumstances that their time provided....

I agree with all of that, in the main. I think, tho, our own view is easily distorted by our common knowledge. It's very, very easy to forget, frex, dumping PCP into rivers wasn't always known to be a bad idea, because, today, we've learned (the hard way...) it is. Or that smoking was hazardous (tho, which surprised me, Nazi Germany did pioneering research showing it was in the '30s). So we feel smarter, & we are--but they weren't dumber, just lacking the knowledge we've gained since... (And, to beat a green horse, Malthus expected a population spike in his infamous 1798 essay. He was wrong. Despite 200yr of evidence he was wrong, the greens are still predicting it.)

Originally Posted by Brainbin

the median is 1977 (and both are trending downward)

Do I detect an inclination to pander to the 18-24s?

Originally Posted by e_wraith

I used to sneak out of bed to catch Johnny.

We were luckier with the cable feed, I think. It was on late here (10.30 after the time change), but not insane late.

Originally Posted by NCW8

Like all of the best lines in Yes Prime Minister, there's something of a grain of truth in that. The duties on tobacco and alcohol are designed to encourage people to give them up (or at least reduce their consumption), but there's no denying that they do provide a lot of revenue for the government.

Which was exactly the argument Humphrey was making. What made it hilarious was, he was, straight-faced & entirely seriously, making an argument the rest of us thought was insane. Which does make me think this explains why people have so much trouble dealing with bureaucracy...

Originally Posted by NCW8

Surak - wonderful man, terrific sense of humour

Which reminds me of something I'd love to see dealt with: Vulcan humor. I simply cannot believe Vulcans have none. I just think they consider even the most erudite human humor on a par with the 3 Stooges: "There are two kinds of people: people who think the Stooges are funny, & Vulcans who wonder why." And those E=mc3 teeshirts? Very old, children's humor...

Originally Posted by Brainbin

he strikes me as far more of a legislative mind than an executive one, if his OTL political activities are any indication

That doesn't exclude him being TTL's Mayor Clint. (So long as he doesn't run for Mayor of Las Vegas.) Or Mayor Sonny.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

cigarettes began -- almost immediately -- to be perceived as low class. Smoking was something you were addicted to, and you were an object of pity for being "unable to quit that 'filthy habit.'" Smoking, in short, became what you did when you were either too uneducated to know it was bad for you, or too weak-willed to stop. Oh, and you're killing the people around you with second-hand smoke, don't you know?

Now, that's a very, very idiosyncratic reaction. In fact, I can't think of another product that's been subjected to that sort of social stigma for casual use. We pity/despise alcoholics today, for example -- but not social drinkers. (It's the reverse; the cocktail party remains an essential element of white collar society.) Maybe crack cocaine -- but there's a racist element there that's disanalogous. Um, crystal meth, perhaps?

Think marijuana. And there is a racist element involved. If tobacco wasn't so widely used by middle-class whites before Koop, & any whites after, it would be illegal now. The arguments for the harms done by marijuana apply more to tobacco--but even the Canadian Supreme Court refuses to recognize the hypocrisy of it.

There's also a racist element in marijuana being illegal. I've seen it proposed, & I believe it, if marijuana was the drug of choice of whites, it would be legal, just like alcohol is.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Anyway, my point is that I find it very difficult to believe that the public's reaction to smoking would follow anything like the course it did IOTL without Koop.

Given how Prohibition started, targetting low-income (& mainly immigrant...) communities, I could believe a tobacco ban happening the same way. It might need a POD way back in the '30s, tho.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

I think any TL that could butterfly away Koop will almost certainly result a very different environment when it comes to smoking.

I absolutely agree with that. If the Drug War, & the proposals in some places to make tobacco illegal, are any indication....

Originally Posted by Brainbin

William Windom
May he rest in peace.

RIP indeed.